Actually, you can. If the value of a successful no-knock raid is greater than the consequences of failure as evidenced on that map, then they are justified.

It seems to be the opinion of the majority of posters here that personal rights violations are not worthy of being abrogated based on the evidenced failures.

Actually it's a higher standard than that. (IMO) It's the value of a no knock over the knock warrant vs the BAD things (TM) that happen in the no knock scenario. Example no knocks get you the evidence needed in X,Y and Z situation but the knock warrant only gets you evidence in X and Y. (These number are hypothetical I don't know the answer.)

Can I believe that there are times and place for no knocks? Honestly yes. But they seem to be given far more often then I believe is reasonable at the moment.

Well if it's a rights issue (searches and seizures) than utilitarian calculus really has no place. Is it good for society if a person can spout racist doctrine? Maybe, maybe not, depending on who you ask. But it is their right under US law and that is that, even if it's harmful to society. So if a no-knock warrant violates the premise of a reasonable search and seizure then they should be outlawed, even if that is harmful to society in some way, or even if it puts police at greater risk, or risks destroying evidence. In American constitutional law inalienable rights trump utilitarian logic.

Actually it's a higher standard than that. (IMO) It's the value of a no knock over the knock warrant vs the BAD things (TM) that happen in the no knock scenario. Example no knocks get you the evidence needed in X,Y and Z situation but the knock warrant only gets you evidence in X and Y. (These number are hypothetical I don't know the answer.)

Close, but note that the knock warrant would result in loss only of a part of the evidence, and that the evidence may be duplicative.

Quote:

Can I believe that there are times and place for no knocks? Honestly yes. But they seem to be given far more often then I believe is reasonable at the moment.

We can think it through by Power Of Reason (TM). Focussing on the drug raids in particular: The largest loss that can happen due to knocking is destruction of the piece of evidence so crucial that drug dealer would walk free.That can only happen if the other evidence, including the evidence that justified the no-knock raid in the first place, and evidence that was not destroyed, is insufficient.Which can only happen if BOTH quantity of drugs is minimal, AND the search warrant is poorly substantiated, AND there is no other way to gather sufficient evidence (such, as, you know, following this guy and catching him in the act of redistribution). The destroyable evidence is only relevant to crime of drug possession, for relatively minor amounts.

To approve of knock-less searches requires that you agree that a number of innocents should be killed* (several a year) to catch some number of minor criminals. That line of reasoning is very reminiscent of 'utilitarian' reasoning of Yezhov.

*of course the members most practised in doublethink can make themselves doubt that the knock-less search is more dangerous to the innocents, but those people are beyond any hope.

DrBobguy wrote:

Well if it's a rights issue (searches and seizures) than utilitarian calculus really has no place. Is it good for society if a person can spout racist doctrine? Maybe, maybe not, depending on who you ask. But it is their right under US law and that is that, even if it's harmful to society. So if a no-knock warrant violates the premise of a reasonable search and seizure then they should be outlawed, even if that is harmful to society in some way, or even if it puts police at greater risk, or risks destroying evidence. In American constitutional law inalienable rights trump utilitarian logic.

Precisely. In this particular case, before government could start employing this so called utilitarian 'calculus', the authorities must be officially permitted to knowingly kill innocent civilians in the name of punishment of minor criminals (guilty of a victimless crime of drug possession of a quantity of drugs that can be realistically destroyed), when the government deems it worth the sacrifice. Really, look at history, what happens when people authorize the government to kill people in the name of abstract common good, in the course of prosecution of minor victimless crime. That's the giant negative utility of replacement of rigid laws/rights/principles system with utilitarian reasoning, right in your face. The proponents of utilitarian reasoning do not care to reason about utility of application of utilitarian reasoning.

In practice I strongly suspect that the only utility of no-knock searching (versus knock) is some minor cost saving when it is cheaper than alternative methods of gathering evidence (such as watching the guy). In the case of drug dealers, in any reasonable legal system, catching drug dealer during redistribution [by watching him] would result in much harsher sentence than mere possession would, so this no-knock raiding is not even tough, merely cheap.

The thing to keep in mind with a no-knock warrant is that it is still a warrant. That means these time was of the essence scenarios (hostages, nuclear bombs) are simply inapplicable. Entry in those cases would be under the exigent circumstances doctrine, which doesn't require a warrant at all.

These are deliberate, considered actions.

This is why they should all be charged with, tried for, and executed for, first degree murder.

I would say life in prison, but AZ has the death penalty, so tough shit for them.

Failing that, no-knock raids that accidentally occur at their houses and result in them getting shot to death in front of their families would also suffice.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, eye for an eye, all that.

Actually it's a higher standard than that. (IMO) It's the value of a no knock over the knock warrant vs the BAD things (TM) that happen in the no knock scenario. Example no knocks get you the evidence needed in X,Y and Z situation but the knock warrant only gets you evidence in X and Y. (These number are hypothetical I don't know the answer.)

Close, but note that the knock warrant would result in loss only of a part of the evidence, and that the evidence may be duplicative.

Quote:

Can I believe that there are times and place for no knocks? Honestly yes. But they seem to be given far more often then I believe is reasonable at the moment.

We can think it through by Power Of Reason (TM). Focussing on the drug raids in particular: The largest loss that can happen due to knocking is destruction of the piece of evidence so crucial that drug dealer would walk free.That can only happen if the other evidence, including the evidence that justified the no-knock raid in the first place, and evidence that was not destroyed, is insufficient.Which can only happen if BOTH quantity of drugs is minimal, AND the search warrant is poorly substantiated, AND there is no other way to gather sufficient evidence (such, as, you know, following this guy and catching him in the act of redistribution). The destroyable evidence is only relevant to crime of drug possession, for relatively minor amounts.

To approve of knock-less searches requires that you agree that a number of innocents should be killed* (several a year) to catch some number of minor criminals. That line of reasoning is very reminiscent of 'utilitarian' reasoning of Yezhov.

*of course the members most practised in doublethink can make themselves doubt that the knock-less search is more dangerous to the innocents, but those people are beyond any hope.

I don't get where your terrible fear of facts comes from. Why are you so sure in your reasoning about no-knock warrants that no amount of data will change your mind? I wouldn't expect to find that no-knock warrants reduce the risk of death to suspects and innocents, but if reasonable data analysis indicated that they were safer, then I'd believe that they're safer.

RAOF: Read "how to lie with statistics". Or best yet, study some science which you seem to be suddenly in favour of. You can't simply compare the innocent civilian death rate for knock warrants vs knockless, because the knockless would usually happen in worse neighbourhoods where people are more likely to take option of self defence. And so on and so forth. All of such factors have to be controlled for. "Doing it with science" is out of the question for a zillion of very simple and straightforward reasons, and anyone proposing to "do it with science" either got a gross misunderstanding as of what are limits of the science (and the amounts of reliance on free reasoning of questionable validity when doing statistical studies), or simply pre-approves of knockless search for psychological reasons and strives for rationalization.

Any conceivable scientific study of this phenomena would rely on far, far larger amount of more shaky reasoning than the simple straightforward reasoning which leads us to believe that knock less searches are more dangerous (and did lead us to believe so during all the time before knock less searches were introduced). That should be absolutely obvious to anyone who knows how such studies have to be performed.

The ultimate bottom line: When cops knock, you pretty much have to do something wrong to get killed. When good cops just break in, if you respond adequately to a break-in, you're dead. Suppose knock-less actually results in fewer deaths than knocked*, so what? Those are the deaths of people who did nothing wrong, compared to deaths of people who did something wrong. *Not to mention that disparity might well result from difference in the locations (knockless being more frequent in more violent neighbourhoods).

Evolution wrote:

Quote:

This is why they should all be charged with, tried for, and executed for, first degree murder.

And the president who signed this into law.

I know this sounds unrealistic but the president who was responsible for this law needs to get some feedback for his actions. Take him to the court will certainly get the messenges to him.

Tougher laws don't necessary fix the problem, the presidents and Congress must know this. The most effective action is to take the president into court.

aint gonna ever happen though... my guess is nothing but a small reprimand will happen to cops, and ditto for whoever approved this law.

RAOF: Read "how to lie with statistics". Or best yet, study some science which you seem to be suddenly in favour of. You can't simply compare the death rate for knock warrants vs knockless, because the knockless would usually happen in worse neighbourhoods where people are more likely to take option of self defence.

But this is going to make the statistics for no-knock warrants look worse, not better. Of course it's possible to mangle statistics to support a pre-conceived notion, but it's also possible to do good statistical analysis.

Even poor, deliberately flawed statistical data supporting your pre-conceived notion is one up from claiming that you can't possibly get data, so your pre-conceived notion doesn't need anything as crass as evidence.

Dmytry wrote:

And so on and so forth. All of such factors have to be controlled for. "Doing it with science" is out of the question for a zillion of very simple and straightforward reasons, and anyone proposing to "do it with science" either got a gross misunderstanding as of what are limits of the science (and the amounts of reliance on free reasoning of questionable validity when doing statistical studies), or simply pre-approves of knockless search for psychological reasons and strives for rationalization.

Any conceivable scientific study of this phenomena would rely on far, far larger amount of more shaky reasoning than the simple straightforward reasoning which leads us to believe that knock less searches are more dangerous (and did lead us to believe so during all the time before knock less searches were introduced). That should be absolutely obvious to anyone who knows how such studies have to be performed.

So, you're basically saying that this question is unanswerable by science. That it's passed the mystical ‘too complicated’ threshold,beyond which you get to just make stuff up because it sounds right.

Well if it's a rights issue (searches and seizures) than utilitarian calculus really has no place. Is it good for society if a person can spout racist doctrine? Maybe, maybe not, depending on who you ask. But it is their right under US law and that is that, even if it's harmful to society. So if a no-knock warrant violates the premise of a reasonable search and seizure then they should be outlawed, even if that is harmful to society in some way, or even if it puts police at greater risk, or risks destroying evidence. In American constitutional law inalienable rights trump utilitarian logic.

The utilitarian calculus may enter through the back door. Isn't what is 'reasonable' at least partly dependent on expected consequences?

RAOF: Read "how to lie with statistics". Or best yet, study some science which you seem to be suddenly in favour of. You can't simply compare the death rate for knock warrants vs knockless, because the knockless would usually happen in worse neighbourhoods where people are more likely to take option of self defence.

But this is going to make the statistics for no-knock warrants look worse, not better. Of course it's possible to mangle statistics to support a pre-conceived notion, but it's also possible to do good statistical analysis.

Unsupported statement. The knock raids happen in one place. The knockless in another. This is aint no experiment with a control group matched to the subjects.How's about, instead of making a bare claim that "it's also possible to do good statistical analysis", which is not supported by anything, you actually do some reasoning? Such as showing how it's possible? You know, reasoning is part of science. edit: actually. How's about you calculate how large the numbers of deaths have to be, to detect, say 25% difference in the death rate with 95% confidence? Not so keen on doing the science, eh? Your claims that it is possible don't need anything as crass as mathematics, right? Or you are disapproving of mathematics also, because mathematics has originated as things that are right because them sound right?

Quote:

Even poor, deliberately flawed statistical data supporting your pre-conceived notion is one up from claiming that you can't possibly get data, so your pre-conceived notion doesn't need anything as crass as evidence.

no, it is not one up. It a step down. From being honest to being a fraudster and a pseudoscientist. From applying reason when data is unavailable, to applying pseudoscience.

You see, I was going out of my way with fairness to explain you the way how statistics would be fucked up in my favour apriori. Then it would be fucked up possibly in your favour after some attempt at de-fucking it up. Then it'll be global warming denial all over again, which by the way all relied on denying the reasoning in favour of unobtainable data.

Quote:

Dmytry wrote:

And so on and so forth. All of such factors have to be controlled for. "Doing it with science" is out of the question for a zillion of very simple and straightforward reasons, and anyone proposing to "do it with science" either got a gross misunderstanding as of what are limits of the science (and the amounts of reliance on free reasoning of questionable validity when doing statistical studies), or simply pre-approves of knockless search for psychological reasons and strives for rationalization.

Any conceivable scientific study of this phenomena would rely on far, far larger amount of more shaky reasoning than the simple straightforward reasoning which leads us to believe that knock less searches are more dangerous (and did lead us to believe so during all the time before knock less searches were introduced). That should be absolutely obvious to anyone who knows how such studies have to be performed.

So, you're basically saying that this question is unanswerable by science. That it's passed the mystical ‘too complicated’ threshold,beyond which you get to just make stuff up because it sounds right.

No, what I am saying, is that you have no clue as of what science is, or how it works, or just how much stuff will be made up 'because it sounds right' in any such study.Furthermore, you are not asking to do it with science in general (experimental or theoretical or obeservational). You are asking to do it with observational science specifically (based on strongly messed up data). You are unsupportive of making stuff up because it sounds right, which would include all the assumptions made in the study when controlling for external factors.

RAOF: Read "how to lie with statistics". Or best yet, study some science which you seem to be suddenly in favour of. You can't simply compare the death rate for knock warrants vs knockless, because the knockless would usually happen in worse neighbourhoods where people are more likely to take option of self defence.

But this is going to make the statistics for no-knock warrants look worse, not better. Of course it's possible to mangle statistics to support a pre-conceived notion, but it's also possible to do good statistical analysis.

Unsupported statement. The knock raids happen in one place. The knockless in another. This is aint no experiment with a control group matched to the subjects.

If a warrant is served in circumstances where the suspect is more likely to take the option of self-defence (which is your claim above), then you would expect to find that serving such warrants result in more injury and death. Are you disputing this?

If a warrants is served in more peaceful circumstances, then you would expect to find that serving such warrants result in less injury and death. Are you disputing this?

So, given “the knockless would usually happen in worse neighbourhoods where people are more likely to take option of self defence”, then you would expect that no-knock warrants would result in more injury and death through no intrinsic fault of the no-knock process. That is, the statistics for no-knock warrants would appear to be worse than they actually are.

Of course, this assumes that the measured rates of violence for knock and no-knock warrants are different. I'd expect them to be so, but the world is absolutely full of things that I don't expect.

Dmytry wrote:

Quote:

Even poor, deliberately flawed statistical data supporting your pre-conceived notion is one up from claiming that you can't possibly get data, so your pre-conceived notion doesn't need anything as crass as evidence.

no, it is not one up. It a step down. From being honest to being a fraudster and a pseudoscientist. From applying reason when data is unavailable, to applying pseudoscience.

You see, I was going out of my way with fairness to explain you the way how statistics would be fucked up in my favour apriori. Then it would be fucked up possibly in your favour after some attempt at de-fucking it up. Then it'll be global warming denial all over again, which by the way all relied on denying the reasoning in favour of unobtainable data.

So, if they're fucked in your favour and it turns out that the rate of injury and death - without applying any corrective factors - isn't higher, then that would tend to indicate that no-knock warrants don't result in increased injury and death.

You could still object to no-knock warrants on other grounds.

Dmytry wrote:

RAOF wrote:

Dmytry wrote:

And so on and so forth. All of such factors have to be controlled for. "Doing it with science" is out of the question for a zillion of very simple and straightforward reasons, and anyone proposing to "do it with science" either got a gross misunderstanding as of what are limits of the science (and the amounts of reliance on free reasoning of questionable validity when doing statistical studies), or simply pre-approves of knockless search for psychological reasons and strives for rationalization.

Any conceivable scientific study of this phenomena would rely on far, far larger amount of more shaky reasoning than the simple straightforward reasoning which leads us to believe that knock less searches are more dangerous (and did lead us to believe so during all the time before knock less searches were introduced). That should be absolutely obvious to anyone who knows how such studies have to be performed.

So, you're basically saying that this question is unanswerable by science. That it's passed the mystical ‘too complicated’ threshold,beyond which you get to just make stuff up because it sounds right.

No, what I am saying, is that you have no clue as of what science is, or how it works, or just how much stuff will be made up 'because it sounds right' in any such study.Furthermore, you are not asking to do it with science. You are asking to do it with observational science.

Some things are outside current or theoretical limits of detection by far.

How's about you, the proponent of scientific method, estimate, right here, using publicly available data, how many deaths during raids are required to detect a 25% increase in death rate for no-knock raids compared to knock raids, with, say, 95% confidence and 95% power? You might find results rather illuminating, and perhaps next time, being illuminated, you are going to have correct reaction to research proposals that are a couple of orders of magnitude off the rocker.Really, what you're doing right here - you're just trying to shift burden of evidence - you did not even provide any sort of theoretical model of how the knock-less warrants would be safer. On the scale of science, you rank at absolute zero. Plausible theoretical model (even in sociology and criminology) infinitely outranks lack of theoretical model and any study.

Furthermore, there is this problem. The non-knock raids will results in the deaths to people who do nothing wrong (knee jerk self defence reaction to a threat which is typically NOT police). The knock raids will result in the deaths of people who did something wrong (had the time to think, yet still appeared in front of cops holding the gun). Let's be open about it - even a totally legitimate study, comparing death rate of equal people, equal cops, equal circumstances, would be totally meaningless.

The relevant deaths for knock raids would be police officers who occasionally get killed while serving warrants.

actually we were discussing civilian deaths specifically, this dude argues that good statistical analysis is possible (and required) to show that no-knock warrants result in higher risk of injury to innocent civilians, but of course he won't suggest a method of analysis or anything, he just think that if its 'OMFG science' it is superior, nevermind the small sample size (innocent people searched by mistake and killed). Sometimes the sample sizes are so small and possible errors are so big you just can't detect jack shit. edit: according to wiki, 40 innocent bystanders killed as result of no knock raids to date, which definitely classifies for "can't detect jack shit" sample size. I can't find any data on the innocent deaths due to knock warrants (but i would expect it to be much lower to the point of non-notability).

Anyhow. The courts have repeatedly assumed that no-knock searches result in higher risk of injury. Go write to your senator how courts must perform good statistical analysis or something on 40 cases. Don't tell me. I'm not even US citizen (my GF is though).http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/knock ... ounce_rule

The relevant deaths for knock raids would be police officers who occasionally get killed while serving warrants.

actually we were discussing civilian deaths specifically, this dude argues that good statistical analysis is possible (and required) to show that no-knock warrants result in higher risk of injury to innocent civilians, but of course he won't suggest a method of analysis or anything, he just think that if its 'OMFG science' it is superior, nevermind the small sample size (innocent people searched by mistake and killed). Sometimes the sample sizes are so small and possible errors are so big you just can't detect jack shit.

I've not been able to find the raw data about this, although I obviously haven't invested a huge amount of time in it.

Data, even with a small sample size, is better than no data. Even with a small sample size, if every no-knock warrant resulted in death or injury, that would be data you'd want to have. At worst, it'll suggest to you how much data you're missing. Having data is not going to harm a correct argument. It might be usable to forward incorrect arguments, but then so can no data at all. At least data gives you the option of pointing to facts, even if the fact is “from the data we've got, we can't tell if it's statistically any better or worse, so we need other arguments”.

Data, even with a small sample size, is better than no data. Even with a small sample size, if every no-knock warrant resulted in death or injury, that would be data you'd want to have. At worst, it'll suggest to you how much data you're missing. Having data is not going to harm a correct argument. It might be usable to forward incorrect arguments, but then so can no data at all. At least data gives you the option of pointing to facts, even if the fact is “from the data we've got, we can't tell if it's statistically any better or worse, so we need other arguments”.

That's all dandy, but in the absence of said data, one must decide whether the burden of proof is on the proponents of no-knock warrants or on their detractors. In light of the evidence here that actually exists, I feel the burden lies squarely on the no-knock proponents, and that the more valid position is that no-knock warrants should be outlawed until their merit can be proven.

I also feel that you are putting too much stock in data-analysis as the solution to this problem. Data analysis is great, but it is not the substitute for critical thought that you are making it out to be. At the end of the day, no matter what the data shows, no-knock warrants create a system in which innocent civilians will be killed by the police through no fault of the civilians or the police.

Certainly, there will be unintentional deaths in any conceivable system. But if the civilian isn't to blame and the police aren't to blame, can it really be called an unintentional death here? If there's no human error at work here, than either the system doesn't work or the system works as designed when it kills innocent civilians. I don't find either of those outcomes acceptable, regardless of any potential benefit.

But if the civilian isn't to blame and the police aren't to blame, can it really be called an unintentional death here? If there's no human error at work here, than either the system doesn't work or the system works as designed when it kills innocent civilians. I don't find either of those outcomes acceptable, regardless of any potential benefit.

I get a lot of email that isn't actually meant for me because my email address is first initial.lastname@gmail.com and many people seem to think this is their address too. Or without the dot. I know it's not just one guy because I get a lot of emails for an Indian IT guy, a doctor, several different women, etc.So I received this, without any way to verify its authenticity because I've never seen myself on this mailing list before.

Quote:

We are all Jose Guerena

On May 5th, Jose Guerena, an American Marine, Iraq War veteran and fellow Tucsonan was killed in his home by armed government agents sworn to uphold the Constitution and whose declared mission is to protect and to serve the people of Pima County.

While an investigation is still underway to determine the facts immediately surrounding the killing, it is my hope that this tragic event will lead to a renewed discussion of the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights.

Memorial Day morning at 8:00am at the intersection of West Valencia and South Wade Ave, please join me in a non-partisan, politically unaffiliated, ceremony in memoriam of a fellow citizen who never got his day in court.

Data, even with a small sample size, is better than no data. Even with a small sample size, if every no-knock warrant resulted in death or injury, that would be data you'd want to have. At worst, it'll suggest to you how much data you're missing. Having data is not going to harm a correct argument. It might be usable to forward incorrect arguments, but then so can no data at all. At least data gives you the option of pointing to facts, even if the fact is “from the data we've got, we can't tell if it's statistically any better or worse, so we need other arguments”.

That's all dandy, but in the absence of said data, one must decide whether the burden of proof is on the proponents of no-knock warrants or on their detractors. In light of the evidence here that actually exists, I feel the burden lies squarely on the no-knock proponents, and that the more valid position is that no-knock warrants should be outlawed until their merit can be proven.

I agree. The status-quo, however, is that no-knock warrants are legal, so you want all the arguments you can get against it; “they're empirically about 3 times more dangerous” will probably convince some people that aren't convinced by the more abstract arguments.

Bammer wrote:

I also feel that you are putting too much stock in data-analysis as the solution to this problem. Data analysis is great, but it is not the substitute for critical thought that you are making it out to be. At the end of the day, no matter what the data shows, no-knock warrants create a system in which innocent civilians will be killed by the police through no fault of the civilians or the police.

I don't intend to advocate data-analysis instead of critical thought. If I've done so, it's been a mistake while attacking Dmytry's “you can't possibly make a data-based risk analysis” too vehemently. Rather in addition to critical analysis - either as an additional argument against no-knock warrants, or as a spur for additional analysis in the highly unlikely event that it seems that they result in less injury or death.

Bammer wrote:

Certainly, there will be unintentional deaths in any conceivable system. But if the civilian isn't to blame and the police aren't to blame, can it really be called an unintentional death here? If there's no human error at work here, than either the system doesn't work or the system works as designed when it kills innocent civilians. I don't find either of those outcomes acceptable, regardless of any potential benefit.

I think I disagree philosophically here, but it's rather sticky and situational - would you really prefer a system which killed twice as many innocent civilians, but where in each case the police were to blame? I don't believe that no-knock warrants are such a system, though. It appears that their failure-mode is sufficiently common and catastrophic that they should be at most reserved for situations of comparable severity; hostage situations are probably the only circumstance where I think they might be justified.

I think I disagree philosophically here, but it's rather sticky and situational - would you really prefer a system which killed twice as many innocent civilians, but where in each case the police were to blame?

Absolutely. We can progress from that starting point through better training, procedure and incentive, until better rates were achieved. In a no-knock raid situation where the civilian threatens the cops with violence because he doesn't know they're cops, and the cops kill the civilian because they're being threatened, there's no path of progress. Either we disallow civilians from defending themselves when being made the victims of home invasion, or cops have to knock on the damn door, or our society has opted to randomly kill it's own civilians by design, for the sake of convenience.

Also no-knock warrants aren't applicable to hostage situations. As has already been stated, entry in those cases would be under the exigent circumstances doctrine, which doesn't require a warrant at all.

Ohh, really?Suppose we have a very exact cube made of material that has uniform density. I propose that if you toss it up spinning, and it falls and bounces several times, probability of it failing on either face is equal. Based on reasoning, you know? You, out of some sort of misunderstanding of what science is, demand data. But there is a catch. Only a few trials have been made; the dice fell on one particular face up only 40 times plus it was not always actually thrown at all.Now, what is better, the reasoning that is logical and plausible, or whatever uncertain crap you can derive from so few trials? Can't you understand that statistics is inherently chancy?

Really, man, you know what, you're openly in favour of pseudoscience here. Probably by honest misunderstanding as of how statistics works. "Even poor, deliberately flawed statistical data supporting your pre-conceived notion is one up from claiming that you can't possibly get data, so your pre-conceived notion doesn't need anything as crass as evidence." view is literally why we get so much pseudoscience done.

"Even with a small sample size, if every no-knock warrant resulted in death or injury, that would be data you'd want to have."ahahahahahaha, hows about less extreme example of where data would be better? There was over 50 000 knock-less searches in 2005 according to wikipedia, majority of them i'd guess not of innocents, there was 40 innocent bystander deaths in knock-less searches. Yes i totally agree that if every of those 50 000 searches resulted in death or injury, that'd be data which would immediately get you rid of searches.

Just out of interest. Are you an anthropogenic climate change sceptic too, just because the anthropogenic climate change is supported solely by logical argument? (there exist no way to directly measure link of the warming and human activity). I'm not mocking, i'm simply wondering. Because this sort of BS is precisely how you can uphold status quo indefinitely in any circumstances.

bluloo too, who proposes to find multitude of relationships by analysis from this little data:

Dmytry wrote:

Some things are outside current or theoretical limits of detection by far.

How's about you, the proponent of scientific method, estimate, right here, using publicly available data, how many deaths during raids are required to detect a 25% increase in death rate for no-knock raids compared to knock raids, with, say, 95% confidence and 95% power? You might find results rather illuminating, and perhaps next time, being illuminated, you are going to have correct reaction to research proposals that are a couple of orders of magnitude off the rocker.

here. You can do this calculation. You only need to know a few rates (and 50 000 knock-less raids in 2005 plus 40 deaths in knockless warrants to date is sufficient for ballpark estimate). Substantiate your claim that data is better than no data.Ohh wait, but you do not actually know how to do that! You do not actually know that science has a protocol of deciding just how much confidence result has! You do not know that science doesn't reject good thinking on basis of too weak data. You don't know that a good statistical analysis also reports the confidence range for the result and statistical power. Do you even know what those terms mean?

[Anyhow, my position, I object to this particular instance on philosophical grounds.

There is a logical, plausible, falsifiable theory of how not knocking results in higher risk to innocent civilians. An argument of a casual link. A scenario that happened several times in reality. There is no theory of how knocking would result in higher risk to innocent civilians, not even a scenario, merely a proposition that 'it might be the case'.

There is a little data to correlate, and the best you can do after correlating the data is to show correlation. Not causation.

I can't believe it. For entire page there was an argument that correlation derived from "even poor, deliberately flawed statistical data" is a better evidence for causation ("step up") than a plausible, logical, reasonable argument suggesting a causal link. Well you know what, science does not work like this. In science, correlation is not automatically same as causation to start with. You know what, in science there's confidence ranges and statistical power and other meta stuff.

Say, there is a theory, that says gravity is roughly same everywhere on Earth and if you step out of 100th story house (without parachute) you die. There is a competing proposition - lacking any theory whatsoever - that you might just fly, hovering in the air. the burden of proof, here, is not on the theory. It is on proposition that you might just fly.

The way it looks here is - you guys are desperately in favour of no-knock searches as the status quo. Consequently you want to put as much burden on the opponents as possible, especially the burden of data gathering and analysis. Without yourself even having to conjure as much as a scenario.

Ohh, really?Suppose we have a cube made of material that has uniform density. I propose that if you toss it up spinning, and it falls and bounces several times, probability of it failing on either face is equal. Based on reasoning, you know?

Reasoning, and the assumption that it's a sufficiently good cube of sufficiently uniform density and isn't under the influence of any force other than gravity.

Dmytry wrote:

You, out of some sort of misunderstanding of what science is, demand data.

I don't think it's unreasonable to check the assumption that it's a non-magnetic cube of uniform density.

Dmytry wrote:

But there is a catch. Only a few trials have been made; the dice fell one particular face up only 40 times plus it was not always actually thrown at all.Now, what is better, the reasoning that is logical, or whatever uncertain crap you can derive from so few trials? Can't you understand that statistics is inherently chancy?

The reasoning “no matter what these few trials show, the true distribution is uniform” depends on how sure you are that the cube a fair die. Given the number of trials and the measured distribution it's possible to work out how consistent the measured distribution is with a uniform distribution. If you've not done many trials, then you're not going to be confident of picking up a slightly weighted die.

On the other hand, if you've only done tens of trials, but it's consistently landed a specific side up, you might doubt the uniform-density-cube hypothesis a bit.

Dmytry wrote:

Some things are outside current or theoretical limits of detection by far.

How's about you, the proponent of scientific method, estimate, right here, using publicly available data, how many deaths during raids are required to detect a 25% increase in death rate for no-knock raids compared to knock raids, with, say, 95% confidence and 95% power? You might find results rather illuminating, and perhaps next time, being illuminated, you are going to have correct reaction to research proposals that are a couple of orders of magnitude off the rocker.

here. You can do this calculation. You only need to know a few rates (and 50 000 knock-less raids in 2005 is sufficient for ballpark estimate).

Is that a ballpark estimate? That seems obscenely high, but as I said, I couldn't find data on no-knock warrants and civilian injuries. If it is that high, then given the relatively low incidence of people actually being shot by police you'll of course need a very strong effect to see any difference that you'd be confident in.

On the other hand, if you do detect that very strong effect, you've instantly got another good argument against no-knock warrants.

Dmytry wrote:

Substantiate your claim that data is better than no data.

I don't need to; it's based on logical reasoning . It's win-neutral. If the effect is big enough to reliably detect on the data that you have, then you've won an extra argument. If you can't, then you've not lost anything. Before you were arguing based on common sense and anecdote, and now you're still arguing based on common sense and anecdote.

Dmytry wrote:

Ohh wait, but you do not actually know how to do that! you do not actually know that Science has a protocol of deciding just of how good the data is! And when the data is utter garbage.

You're absolutely right; I know less statistics than I should. Of course I know that you can work out how confident you are in the data, otherwise I wouldn't have been consistently saying things like “reasonable data analysis” and

RAOF wrote:

At least data gives you the option of pointing to facts, even if the fact is “from the data we've got, we can't tell if it's statistically any better or worse, so we need other arguments”.

Well, but your point is NOT that with data is better than without. Your point as you stated is a lot stronger proposition - to disregard the argument (uphold the status quo) when there's no data available (which you admit to).Furthermore, all the data can show is correlation between not knocking and civilians getting shot, and we need to show causation. It is always a very weak argument to rely on correlation to show causation. With the magnetic dice - well well, and if you as much as proposed a mechanism of how knocking would result in higher risk of injury to innocents, you'd have a point. What's about possibility that there's a strong Torsional Field flux at that window, and you step out and levitate because you're Torsional Field equivalent of magnet? Why won't you just jump outta window if I won't bother to provide you statistics as of how often that results in death versus not jumping out of window (for which it is really hard to find any data online, suppose i've been trying to find the death rate from decision not to jump, and i couldn't).

Nobody's arguing that data is worse than no data. Though I would argue anytime that deliberately flawed data IS worse than no data, as is pseudoscience worse than 'no science', and pseudoscience is definitely worse than logical argument. You know, why there's so much pseudoscience around... whenever science can't answer the question, there's this demand for some scientific answer, and pseudoscience provides.

re: the number of knock less searches being about 50000 in 2005, see wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrantand the referenced sourcehttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1129/p03s03-ussc.htmlIt is fairly clear that you haven't did a slightest search for the actual data. This is too ridiculous. What we have here - botched police raids are a very rare occurrence (earlier I referenced 40 deaths to date) and as such any conceivable correlations in the data is possible to explain without invoking causation from knock to death. The issue is genuinely at the point where you want to get more information out of data than there could be.

Certainly, there will be unintentional deaths in any conceivable system. But if the civilian isn't to blame and the police aren't to blame, can it really be called an unintentional death here? If there's no human error at work here, than either the system doesn't work or the system works as designed when it kills innocent civilians. I don't find either of those outcomes acceptable, regardless of any potential benefit.

We need to know how many 'unbotched', no-knock warrants are properly executed to determine if this is noise*.

I just want to note that this is data we will never, ever have. The "authorities" can lie, and will lie, and won't always get caught. And in the fact that these no-knocks are often carried on by police SWAT (*cough*), and you have a recipe for bullshit cake with racist icing.

I mean, look at this guy in AZ. They let him die. They clearly wanted him to die.

..and this is just the tippy tip top of the iceberg we hear about… No one is dumb enough to believe that all corrupt cops get caught. I’d wager 1 in 10, max.

Peter is being a troll as usual, so just ignore there. But Dmytry, are you seriously saying evidence doesn't count? That the plural of anecdote is actually evidence in this case?

ever heard of correlation vs causation?when there's 40 bystanders killed, I am saying that you can't really do some serious 'data mining' out of it.If you randomly chosen 20 000 innocent home owners and knock-warranted 10 000 and no-knock warranted other 10 000 by randomly chosen cops and counted the (homeowner) bodies that could have worked (isolating the knock vs no-knock as the cause, and showing correlation, good science here). What could also work, is not being a complete moron and using thought to determine what the result likely will be (in the same manner how justice system operates most of the time). What won't work is being a total moron and demanding analysis on data so small and with so many co-founding factors as for the correlation not to imply knock-->death (vs noknock-->death) causation or anything.

You personally. If police knocks on the door shouting "police", versus police just busts in guns drawn, off safety, which case do you think has higher risk of injury to you? Or you cannot think?

What would be a good solution? Is threat of lethal force truly necessary to prevent destruction of drug evidence? "Stop flushing that weed before I blow your head off?" Sure, some drug dealers are armed and dangerous. But how often do we see Scarface style shootouts?

If the "no-knock warrant" is truly an effective tool for law enforcement (of which many of us have doubts), perhaps there needs to be a 2-tier team. The entry team consists of guys with bulletproof shields and big fucking sticks. The gun team awaits nearby in case they are needed. I'd guess the gun team would not be necessary the vast majority of the time. It's really hard to accidentally shoot someone 60 times with a stick.

Frankly, the whole thing smacks of justifying the expense of keeping a paramilitary force in the budget, seeing as how hostage situations and the terrorist plots are few and far between. There's really no reason to have a dedicated local SWAT team for most locations except it gives some police chief a fucking hard-on.

Peter is being a troll as usual, so just ignore there. But Dmytry, are you seriously saying evidence doesn't count? That the plural of anecdote is actually evidence in this case?

ever heard of correlation vs causation?when there's 40 bystanders killed, I am saying that you can't really do some serious 'data mining' out of it.If you randomly chosen 20 000 innocent home owners and knock-warranted 10 000 and no-knock warranted other 10 000 by randomly chosen cops and counted the (homeowner) bodies that could have worked (isolating the knock vs no-knock as the cause, and showing correlation, good science here). What could also work, is not being a complete moron and using thought to determine what the result likely will be (in the same manner how justice system operates most of the time). What won't work is being a total moron and demanding analysis on data so small and with so many co-founding factors as for the correlation not to imply knock-->death (vs noknock-->death) causation or anything.

You personally. If police knocks on the door shouting "police", versus police just busts in guns drawn, off safety, which case do you think has higher risk of injury to you? Or you cannot think?

You didn't actually make a case in here anywhere, you just made an appeal to emotion and implied I can't think.

Well if it's a rights issue (searches and seizures) than utilitarian calculus really has no place. Is it good for society if a person can spout racist doctrine? Maybe, maybe not, depending on who you ask. But it is their right under US law and that is that, even if it's harmful to society. So if a no-knock warrant violates the premise of a reasonable search and seizure then they should be outlawed, even if that is harmful to society in some way, or even if it puts police at greater risk, or risks destroying evidence. In American constitutional law inalienable rights trump utilitarian logic.

I think there's a pretty good case to be made it's a rights issue even if we ignore the incompetence and racism.

In a system that purports to adhere to "innocent until proven guilty", these kinds of raids front-load a pretty significant risk onto the people that get raided. If raids like these are consistently overused, and there's a systemic failure for them to be conducted safely or even to provide basic first aid to civilians that get injured, then they simply aren't consistent with due process.

You personally. If police knocks on the door shouting "police", versus police just busts in guns drawn, off safety, which case do you think has higher risk of injury to you? Or you cannot think?

You didn't actually make a case in here anywhere, you just made an appeal to emotion and implied I can't think.

well prove me wrong, think for a few minutes somehow, and tell what do you think has higher risk of injury, the guns drawn safety off, versus knocking and 'open up its police' and you can look through peephole and think if you want to shoot them. Which way do you prefer to be searched tonight, knock or no-knock?

That is not an appeal to emotion, that is just description of the two situations, I am sorry if that triggers emotional response in you which you find distressing.

We need to know how many 'unbotched', no-knock warrants are properly executed to determine if this is noise*.

I just want to note that this is data we will never, ever have. The "authorities" can lie, and will lie, and won't always get caught. And in the fact that these no-knocks are often carried on by police SWAT (*cough*), and you have a recipe for bullshit cake with racist icing.

I mean, look at this guy in AZ. They let him die. They clearly wanted him to die.

..and this is just the tippy tip top of the iceberg we hear about… No one is dumb enough to believe that all corrupt cops get caught. I’d wager 1 in 10, max.

If true, it's quite sad. The same data could (in theory) also be used to create safer conditions for LEOs as well as increase the level of public trust in the system.

This kind of shit enrages me as much as most others here but the onus is, IMO, on us to avoid emotional reactions. They only stiffen opposition to openness and justice.

Dmytry wrote:

well prove me wrong

You're making the assertion that reliable, objective data couldn't possibly be useful. It's your position, the onus is on you prove that it's correct.Presumption does not favor your position.

FWIW, it seems that most of us occupy the same general position WRT the no-knock process issues noted ITT. Not sure what the objection is to having additional (in theory) information on which to make an informed decision.

the objection is to the notion that such data is required before status quo is to be changed, as well as to the notion that correlation is the preferred method of proving anything about causality. As well to massively overinflated expectations as of what could realistically be obtained from the quantity of data that exists. [coming, correct me if i'm wrong, from non-scientists with poor understanding of the scientific process]